tracking uvm

By Gioia ThompsonCoordinator

UVM Environmental CouncilDecember 2002

In partnership with

Burlington Legacy Project

Green Mountain Institute forEnvironmental Democracy

Institute for SustainableCommunities

Funded by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and the University of Vermont

An EnvironmentalReport Card

for theUniversity of Vermont

for the years 1990-2000UVM

Tracking

About thisReport Card................ 2

Summary.................... 3

Land and WaterUse............................. 4

Energy andAir Pollution..............10

Solid and HazardousWaste........................16

Academics andCulture......................22

Recommendationsfor UVM....................24

Web Resources......... 25

Project PartnersThis report is a project of four organizations

working in partnership.

UVM Environmental CouncilAn advisory council of UVM students, staff,

faculty, and alumni working to celebrate andreinforce UVM’s commitment to environmentalvalues.

Contact: 284 East AvenueBurlington, VT 05405(802) [email protected]://www.uvm.edu/environment

Burlington Legacy ProjectA sustainable development project of the

Burlington Community and EconomicDevelopment Office.

Contact: City Hall, Rm. 32149 Church Street, Burlington, VT 05401(802) 865-7515http://www.cedo.ci.burlington.vt.us/legacy

Green Mountain Institute forEnvironmental Democracy

A non-profit organization that promoteseffective, collaborative decisionmaking byproviding information-based tools addressingthe health of the environment and the peoplein it.

Contact: 26 East State StreetMontpelier, VT 05602(802) 229-1070, [email protected]://www.gmied.org

Institute for Sustainable CommunitiesAn independent, non-profit organization

that helps communities in existing and emergingdemocracies solve problems while building abetter future for themselves and the world.

Contact: 56 College StreetMontpelier, VT 05602(802) 229-12900, [email protected]://www.iscvt.org

Contents

Local StakeholdersPreliminary findings were discussed with

knowledgeable groups on and off campus who helpedshape this report, including:

Campus StakeholdersBurlington Electric DepartmentCampus Planning ServicesConsortium for Ecological LivingEnvironmental ProgramEnvironmental Safety FacilityPhysical Plant DepartmentSchool of Natural ResourcesTransportation and Parking DepartmentVermont Student Environmental Program

Burlington StakeholdersAlliance for Climate ActionBurlington Board of HealthBurlington Eco Info ProjectBurlington Electric DepartmentBurlington Public Works DepartmentChamplain InitiativeLake Champlain CommitteeNeighborhood Action Project

AcknowledgmentsMany thanks to the dozens of people at UVM who

helped in the creation of this report. Special thanks toEileen Galinski and the individuals who helped withthe arduous task of compiling and analyzing data:Joanna Carney, John Casey, Shirley Fortier, SusanGreenhalgh, Linda Howard, Tom Kellogg, Meg ModleyBill Nedde, Bob Penniman, Linda Seavey, Erica Spiegel,Ralph Stuart, and Richard Wolbach.

Editing assistance from Danielle Graham, StephanieKaza, Al McIntosh, Jim Northup, and Ralph Stuart wasmuch appreciated.

Tracking UVM:EnvironmentalReport Card1990-2000

Project coordination: Gioia ThompsonResearch and writing: Gioia Thompson, Eileen Galinski, and

Sandra O’Flaherty (EC).Stakeholder coordination: Adarsh Mantravadi and

Betsy Rosenbluth (BLP).Indicators review: Ken Jones (GMIED).Process review: Roger Clapp (ISC).Design: Linda Mirabile, Montpelier, Vermont.Printing: Stillwater Graphics, Williamstown, Vermont.

WFrom the President

hen people come to Vermont they see evidenceof environmental responsibility in many quarters.The University of Vermont, as the flagship

educational institution in the state, has taken some impressivesteps to create a culture of environmental responsibility amongits students, staff, and faculty. We are a leading land-grantuniversity in environmental education, environmental research,and institutional environmental practices.

Already members of the UVM community are activeparticipants in the national conversation on sustainability inhigher education. In this report you will learn about UVM’ssuccessful hazardous materials programs, our high recycling rate,our experiments with biodiesel, and many other examples ofcampus “greening” practices.

To lay the groundwork for the future, the UVM Environmental Council has beguntracking our progress as an environmentally responsible institution in key areas.In some cases, the indicators show considerable progress toward a sustainable vision,and that is cause for celebration. In other cases, indicators point to gaps in data orareas for improvement. These quantitative measures can serve both as a history of thelast ten years of effort and as a baseline for evaluating future progress.

Throughout this report, I am very pleased to see that student projects have made adifference over and over again. Faculty and students working together with committedstaff have helped to reduce waste, conserve energy, monitor water and air quality, andpromote public transportation. The discussions raised by this report will, no doubt,stimulate further dialogue about the role of the environmental university in the 21stcentury. If UVM is to keep its lead in this area, we will need to take up our ownchallenges of housing and transportation with a serious commitment to a sustainablefuture.

I am proud of UVM’s best practices thus far and I look forward to taking the nextimportant steps in making this campus a national model for environmentalsustainability.

Daniel Mark Fogel

Purpose of Tracking UVM

During the 1990s, a “campus greening”movement blossomed in the United States.Dozens of colleges and universities initiatedefforts to reduce the environmental impacts ofoperating their campuses, and many hiredstaff to coordinate “greening” efforts. Demon-stration projects developed into best practicesfor recycling, energy conservation, waterconservation, and many other activities.

How much difference do these bestpractices make? Which areas of campusoperations create the largest impacts, andtherefore deserve the most attention? Thisreport, one of a handful of similar studiesconducted by colleges and universities,addresses these questions at the Universityof Vermont.

The purpose of this first environmentalreport card is to:

l Establish a set of measures to track theenvironmental impacts of the university,in consultation with the campuscommunity and citizens of Burlington;

l Identify university programs that havereduced environmental impacts;

l Stimulate discussion on the campus andin the Burlington community about theprogress made so far and future actionsthe university could take; and

l Share findings with the larger communityof higher education.

About this Report Card

This report card asks a central question:

Are the daily operations of the university creating more orfewer environmental impacts than in 1990?

Some of these impacts are local, such as untreated water running offparking lots, while others are regional or global, such as radioactive wastedisposal and the release of greenhouse gases that are contributing to climatechange. Collectively these impacts are called an “ecological footprint.”

The environment is a wonderfully complex interaction of physical andbiological actions. In order to assess progress in reducing the university’sfootprint, we have chosen some indicators of environmental impacts. Ideally,environmental indicators are relevant to impacts, use valid sources of data,and can be compiled using existing data.

Limits of indicatorsThe indicators we chose are just that – “indicators” of changes in the

environment. They are not precise or comprehensive. In the future, wemay be able to do a better job if we can develop more data, but eventhen, measures such as these reported here can only begin to describe thechanging condition of the campus environment or its broader impacts.

In general, the indicators used in this report span the decade between1990 and 2000. Land use, solid waste and hazardous waste data were notavailable for the entire decade. The data for all the indicators are rough,requiring estimates, judgments, and hundreds of hours of work to collectand analyze. In most cases, the indicators raise as many questions as theyanswer – questions that point to opportunities for student projects andfunded research.

Therefore, these indicators serve as a basis for conversation, not adefinitive judgment about the performance of university operations. Over theyears, we expect the choice of indicators will evolve. We hope that environ-mental indicators will be integrated into the business of the institution, toinform this conversation in the future.

Involving local stakeholdersTo ensure that this report would be relevant to community concerns,

we involved on- and off-campus stakeholders in the creation of the report(see inside front cover). We presented our preliminary findings to groups ofpeople on and off campus who were knowledgeable about environmentalissues. In response to our presentations, campus stakeholders expressedgreatest concern about the increase in trash on campus and a strongdesire to build new environmentally responsible student housing on

campus. Burlington stakeholders frequently discussed transportationissues and the need for more student housing on campus.

The stakeholders changed the direction of this report significantlyby posing an important question: Who could change the trends that weregoing in the wrong direction? We determined that in many instances,individuals have very limited control over their environmental impacts.This led us to compare the environmental impacts of different types ofbuildings – residence halls, laboratories, and general campus buildings –with some surprising results.

Campus and community stakeholders also made a wide range ofcomments that contributed to this report’s findings, discussion, andrecommendations.

How this report is organizedIn the body of this report we show the connections among

environmental impacts, the activities that create these impacts, andprograms that have been and could be established to reduce thenegative impacts from UVM’s activities.

Major findings are in three sections:

l Land and water usel Energy and air pollutionl Solid and hazardous waste

Each section contains the following subsections:

Resource map:– where UVM’s water flows, where energy comes from, where wastegoes, and what environmental problems result

Campus resource use:– a rough estimate, based on sample data from the year 2000, of whoon campus uses the most land, water, energy, and materials

Trends: – indicators of progress, or baseline data for future tracking

UVM programs & best practices:– UVM actions that have reduced environmental impacts anddemonstration projects that educate the campus community

Community comments & next steps:– summary of relevant issues and suggestions to the campuscommunity about where to focus next.

Because education is the institution’s core mission, we also includea brief section about the role of environmental academics and culture.The report concludes with recommendations for the UVM administrationand the campus community.

Page 2 / Tracking UVM 1990-2000

etween 1990 and 2000, UVM has made significant efforts towards”walking the talk” of a responsible environmental citizen. Newmanagement programs during the 1990s significantly reduced the

environmental impacts of UVM’s operations. Many of these programsconstitute “best practices” for institutions of higher education.

Yet despite these efforts, the measurements in this report show thatmany of UVM’s environmental impacts increased over the decade. Theproblem is that implementing best practices and demonstration projects isnot always enough to overcome national economic trends affecting theuniversity’s environmental impacts. For example, despite aggressive energyconservation and solid waste recycling programs, UVM’s trash and energyuse levels increased, although at rates lower than national trends.

The grades below are given in the context of an overburdened planet.The United States, with 5% of the world’s population, uses 25% of the

Tracking UVM 1990-2000 / Page 3

BSummary

Land and Water Use Energy and Air Pollution Solid and Hazardous Waste

world’s resources, and resource use continues to rise. If everyone on theplanet lived as we do in the U.S., human beings’ ecological footprint wouldcover several more planets.

This perspective is the basis for asking our report card question: DidUVM have a smaller ecological footprint in 2000 than in 1990? Our trackingof that footprint indicates that, in many instances, the answer is no, althoughthat footprint would have been larger if it were not for the many newenvironmental programs on campus. The grades here indicate whathappened despite UVM’s best efforts. The result is a sobering reminder forthe campus and Burlington community about just how much work lies ahead.

Fortunately, UVM is well equipped to take on this challenge. TheAcademics & Culture section (page 22) describes the tremendous growthof environmentally related majors, high expectations for a sustainablecampus, and high levels of volunteerism at UVM. University programs havealready made a difference. With a continuing commitment to innovationand long-term planning, UVM will continue to be a leader in helping tocreate a truly sustainable way of living on this planet.

GradingSystem

shows a positivetrend towards amore environmentallysustainable campus

shows anegative trend, withmore environmentalproblems fromcampus operations

shows littlechange or inadequatedata

+

–

~

Main campus land use Energy sources Trash generation

Little change in use of green space;data not available

Transportation Carbon emissions Recycling

Water use Energy use Hazardous waste

Storm water management Air pollution from heating Radioactive waste

Electricity sources became cleaner;20% renewable in 2000

Trash totals increased 20% since1996

Commuting miles are estimated tohave increased, based on increasein parking permits

Carbon emissions up 2% above1990 levels

Recycled at least 31% in late1990s, but amount recycleddecreased since 1996

Water use decreased 15% despitean increase in building space

Total energy use increased 6%;heating remained the same;electricity increased 23%

Total hazardous construction,laboratory, and maintenance wastefluctuated with construction

Two year peak storm water flowswere reduced at least 40% bytreatment ponds

Little change in regulatedpollutants in 1990s; major pollutantis NOx

Radioactive waste decreased 81%over 10 years

+

+

+ +

~

~ –

–

–

~

~

~

VM’s use of land for buildings,transportation and green spaceaffects water quality in Lake

Champlain, the source of UVM’s drinkingwater. An increasing number of buildingsand parking spaces challenges theuniversity’s ability to minimize environ-mental impacts.

When precipitation falls on UVMbuildings, lawns and parking lots, it washesoff sediment, oil, and other pollutants.This storm water then either:

l filters through soill evaporates into the atmospherel is absorbed by vegetationl collects in storm water treatment

basins before release intostreams

l flows to the city’s wastewatertreatment plant and storm wateroverflow system and/or

l runs off the land.

Storm water then enters LakeChamplain as treated or untreated stormwater.

Storm water can carry pollutants suchas phosphorus, sediment and bacteria intothe lake, resulting in:

l health hazardsl excessive algae growthl low or poor water quality.

Centennial, Englesby and Potashbrooks near campus have suffered poorwater quality in the past.

Where DoesUVM’swater go?

Land andWaterUse

U

UVM Stormwater Treatment Ponds

UVM Stormwater Treatment Ponds

Main Campus Storm Water Management Area

drains to city storm and sewer system

drains to UVM storm water treatment ponds

Inte

rsta

te 8

9

Main Street/Route 2

Centennial baseballfield

Water tower

East

Ave

nue

UV

M G

reen

RedstoneApartments

So

uth

Pro

spec

t S

tree

t

Lake Champlain

Winooski River

Centennial Brook

PotashBrook

Englesby Brook

N

Water Treatment Plant

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Main Street

Route 2

Interstate 89

UVM



Campus Resource Use

How is parking space used?

Faculty and staff used two-thirds of UVM’s parking spacesin 2000.

A common perception among Burlington stakeholders interviewed forthis report card was that UVM’s 9,000 students were the primary users ofparking on the UVM main campus, as well as the main contributors totraffic. The data showed that this was not true.

Many of UVM’s 2,000 faculty and 1,000 staff live far from campus; theaverage one-way commute is 16 miles. In addition to burdening UVMland with parking spaces, commuting creates regional air, land,and water impacts. Continued improvement of regional publictransportation systems could reduce the need for parking spaces.

Total= 4,296 parking spaces in 2000�

Total= 3,717,400 square feet(analysis of 86% of campus)

Faculty/Staff: 67%

Visitor: 5%

Students: 28%

Rest of campus: 56%

Laboratory buildings:15%

Residence halls: 29%

How is floor space used?

Residence halls and associated services occupyone-third of campus floor space.

We looked at three categories of building use: residence hallsand associated services, laboratory buildings, and the rest of campus(classrooms, offices, public space). These categories have differingamounts of energy use, water use, and trash generation. Examiningenvironmental impacts per square foot of floor space can helpprioritize where the most significant improvements could be made.

As described in detail in later chapters of this report, the 3,735students living and eating in residence halls use about one-sixth ofthe total electricity and generate half the solid waste on campus.

Laboratories occupy one-sixth of floor space.

Laboratory buildings are much more resource intensive thanresidence halls. Laboratories use one-third of campus electricity, andthey generate one-sixth of solid waste and almost half of hazardouswaste. They also use about one-third of campus water.

/ Tracking UVM 1990-2000

Trends

Campus land use: what share is parking?

Percent of land used for parking is an informative environmen-tal indicator, but calculating lot density is a complex process,and data were not readily available for the 1990s. While buildingsand parking spaces were constructed between 1990 and 2000,many of the projects were constructed on already paved land,and reconfiguration of parking lots created some new parkingspaces. The net effect appears to be that land use, including landused for parking, did not change significantly during the decade.

The 2002 data shown here provide a baseline for evaluatingland use in the future. Approximately 50% of campus is mappedelectronically in 2002. The chart here shows unverified estimatesof land use on the Academic Core Campus, including Central,Centennial, Redstone, and Athletic Campus (not South Campus,which is primarily agricultural).

Building up, not out is the goal. The 1997 Campus Master Planfocuses on concentrating development within designated campusdistricts; considering transportation linkages and circulationpatterns to enhance a pedestrian-friendly campus; using parkinglots as first options to site a new project; and conserving greenspace. New parking is typically planned for the periphery ratherthan the center of campus.

More parking indicates more commuting miles

Total parking spaces increased by 9% (344 spaces) over the decadeas new buildings created new demand for parking. However, withoutpolicies to minimize new parking, the increase would have been fargreater.

Student parking spaces decreased by 29% (478 spaces) followingthe creation of the bus system, and a policy that first year studentsare not permitted to have parking spaces, with some exceptions.Meanwhile, the number of students decreased 8%.

Faculty and staff parking increased 40% (833 spaces). Faculty andstaff travel an average of 16 miles each way to UVM. Although UVMencourages multiple alternative transportation options, such ascarpooling and public transportation (see page 8), regional effortsare needed to increase transportation opportunities in the greaterBurlington area.

UVM commuters travel about 21 million miles per year, equivalentto driving a quarter of the distance to the sun, or 88 times to the moon.Faculty and staff commuting account for 75% of these miles. Theseestimates need refining before they can be useful for suggesting specificactions to reduce commuting miles.

1990

5000

Total

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Faculty/Staff

Students

Visitors

Main Campus Parking Spaces 1990-2000Campus Land Use in 2002 (Academic Core Campus)

Greenspace: 75%

Buildings: 9%

Parking lots: 10%

Roadways: 3%

Sidewalks: 3%

Total = 438 acres in 2002


Trends

Storm water treatment ponds reduced flowsat least 40%

Storm water management improved significantly in the 1990s withconstruction of five treatment ponds designed to slow down stormwater, allowing sediment to settle and reducing risk of erosion.Engineers calculate that these ponds have reduced average two-yearstorm water peak flows by at least 40% – and up to 90% in some partsof campus (note watersheds are of differing sizes). Storm watermanagement systems exist for each section of campus. The storm watertreatment systems are typically modified or updated as new constructionprojects are approved, as new regulations require modifications, orwhen monitoring highlights a problem. More regularly scheduledupdates would provide better environmental protection.

Storm water quality would be a useful measure. Faculty andstudents in the School of Natural Resources are testing storm watercollected at the Rubenstein Ecosystem Science Center, and the WaterCenter at SNR has initiated intensive monitoring of campus streams.

Water use down 15%; less used for heatingand cooling

Water conservation was a quiet success in the 1990s resultingprimarily from the actions of energy management staff in PhysicalPlant. Campus water use has gone down 15% despite the fact thatbuilding square footage has increased. Water and wastewater costUVM about $1 million per year.

Reductions are largely from heating and cooling. Investments inmore efficient ways of heating at the Central Heating Plant andcooling at the Medical Complex resulted in large reductions in wateruse. New water conservation measures are implemented regularly aspart of maintenance and construction.

Laboratory buildings use roughly 30% of campus water;residential buildings use 30%; and the rest of campus uses 40%.Water use per square foot in laboratory buildings is about twicethat of residence halls.

EastCampus

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

NorthCampus

SouthCampus

North Pond

SouthCampus

South Pond

Main Street East

Cub

ic F

eet p

er S

econ

d

After Treatment Ponds

Before Treatment Ponds

Average Two-year Peak Storm Water Flows

20,000,000

1990

Cub

ic F

eet

25,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

01992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Heating & Medical ComplexRest of Campus

Water Use 1990-2001

UVM Programs Best Practices


Land Use

1990 UVM created a campus shuttle system toreduce the need for parking and implementedzoned parking served by shuttles

1990 Campus Area Transportation ManagementAssociation (CATMA) was created for UVMand other institutions to plan and manageparking and transportation, and bettercoordinate land use

1996 Board of Trustees established UVM NaturalAreas Center. Natural Areas were created in1974; totaled 1,919 acres in 2002

1996 Physical Plant ceased routine use of pesticidesand herbicides for landscaping

1997 UVM signed an agreement with The VermontLand Trust to protect the 66-acre CentennialWoods Natural Area in perpetuity

1997 Board of Trustees adopted UVM CampusMaster Plan; established principles andpremises to promote best land useand encourage new development onpre-developed sites

1997 UVM formally adopted Storm Water BestManagement Policy

1999 City of Burlington adopted Institutional CoreOverlay zoning district, allowing growth inthe core of Central Campus

Water Use

1990 Energy Policy included water conservation;eliminated single-pass, water-cooled airconditioning; established practice of minimalwatering for landscaping

1992 Physical Plant began installation of waterconserving devices on residential campus andin renovations and new construction

Commuter programs provide incentivesUVM is a member of the Burlington-based Campus Area Transportation Management

Association that includes the hospital and nearby institutions. CATMA’s annual surveyresults show a decline in the use of single-occupancy vehicles to campus, with a rate ofless than 70% at UVM compared with local and national rates of 80%. Faculty and staffuse mass transit at a rate of 6%, compared with a national average of 2%.

CATMA and UVM together provide incentives to commuters to walk, ride bicycles,carpool, and take public transportation:

l Coordination between campus and community public transportation systemsl Reduced rates on bus passesl Gift certificates to downtown businessesl Closer parking spaces for carpoolersl Guaranteed ride home for people who commit to commuting alternativesl Parking fees based on proximity to campus (zoned parking)l Well-enforced parking policies with high fees for violationIn addition, UVM allows flexible work schedules and telecommuting as ways to

reduce traffic congestion and provides free parking off campus served by shuttles.UVM has granted land easements to local municipalities to install bikeways providinglinkages to community bikeways.

Pesticide use dramatically reducedBecause pesticides can have varying levels of toxicity and their effects on the environ-

ment depend on how and when they are applied, we did not track pesticide use as anindicator for this report. However, the data indicate that use of pesticides (includingherbicides) for landscaping dropped dramatically during the 1990s. The present policy isto use pesticides only for spot applications and after consultation with the BurlingtonBoard of Health. Signs are posted alerting the campus about these spot applications.

The Physical Plant Department focuses on aerating and minimizing compaction oflawns as the best way to encourage grass rather than weeds to grow.

Effective storm water treatment practicesIn 1997 UVM formally adopted a policy for storm water, committing to best practices

for storm water management after consulting with experts at the School of NaturalResources. UVM works collaboratively with key stakeholders within the regionto implement the policy. For example, UVM and the Fletcher Allen Hospital recentlyconstructed a state-of-the-art storm water treatment facility near the Centennial BaseballField. The multi-pond facility is designed to remove 80% of total suspended solidsand 40% total phosphorus, making it one of the most effective treatment facilities inVermont.

Next StepsCommunity Comments


Transportation and parkingBurlington stakeholders’ comments on energy, greenhouse gases, and land use trends all

pointed to transportation as the key land use issue. Those most knowledgeable about transportationrecommended that the number of commuting miles serve as an environmental indicator for landuse. A future indicator could be the number of bus trips to campus from satellite parking areas –preferably in buses run on alternate fuels, such as natural gas or electricity. These data are nowbeing collected.

Campus stakeholders discussed the difficulty of finding parking places and the need to maintainexisting green space on campus. A parking garage was seen as a necessary next step in the growthof campus.

New student housing neededThe long-term residents of adjacent neighborhoods suggested that the number of students living

off campus might make a good indicator for the many environmental problems they suffer: noise,trash, traffic and loss of green space to cars. In the 1990s student enrollment dropped by 560students and an estimated 600 fewer students lived off campus. During this same period, UVMchanged its housing policy to require first and second year students to live on campus; upgradedresidence halls to attract students back to campus; and constructed 214 new beds at RedstoneStudent Apartments.

The decline in off-campus residents surprised those interviewed, as their experience was thatneighborhood problems had worsened during the decade. Building additional housing on campuswould, they said, lessen the pressure on their neighborhoods, and free up scarce affordable housing.

Green student housingStudents and faculty described the construction of new “green” student housing as a vital aspect

of environmental education at the university. They emphasized that a residence hall with modeltechnologies such as solar power and natural cooling systems could not only educate the occupantsof the building but also raise standards for future buildings and attract interest and funding. Campusand Burlington stakeholders alike encouraged the university to build according to LEED (Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design) standards developed by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Centennial WoodsDuring discussions about land use, Burlington stakeholders often mentioned Centennial Woods,

including both the 66-acre Natural Area and the 81 acres adjacent to it. The Natural Area, a five-minute walk from the center of campus, serves as a resource for teaching and research. Nearbyresidents use the Natural Area and rest of Centennial Woods for quiet recreation in an increasinglyurban area. They lauded the preservation of the Natural Area and urged the university to preservemore of the woods. Campus staff noted that the Natural Area, one of few permanently protectedpieces of land in the city, was created for research and protection of ecosystems, and they expressedconcern about the impacts of pets and recreational use of the Natural Area. Stakeholder interest inCentennial Woods highlights both the value and scarcity of preserved land in the Burlington area.

Focus on transportation as the keyland use issue

l Continue to encourage UVM commuters touse alternatives to single-occupancyvehicles driving to the already crowdedcampus. This will reduce the need forparking and associated stormwater runoffand air pollution.

l Build a parking garage rather than newsurface parking. This will minimizestorm water runoff and use of green space.

l Support regional efforts to improve publictransportation.

Build “green” student housingon campus

l Build new housing on the main campusto reduce pressure on downtownhousing and neighborhoods.

l Strive for LEED certification of newstudent housing as a way to educatestudents and raise campus buildingstandards.

Future research ideas:

l Complete an electronic inventory ofbuilding space and land use in MainCampus.

l Refine calculations about commutingmiles traveled.

l Calculate reduction in commutingmiles from use of alternate modes oftransportation.

E

Energyand AirPollution

nergy use results in many impacts to thelocal, regional and global environment.Using energy more efficiently offers the

best way to reduce these environmentalproblems. Purchasing renewable energy alsoreduces pollution.

UVM’s electricity came from mix of sourcesin 2000, as shown at right.

Impacts from using energy include:l Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide,

associated with global climate changel Mining coal and extracting oil can damage

ecosystems and water suppliesl Nuclear power generates waste disposal

problems and poses the risk of a catastrophicaccident

l Hydroelectric power can damageecosystems along waterways

l Burning biomass wood, while renewable andcleaner than fossil fuels, still emits somepollution, particularly nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Nationally, of the six regulated air pollutantsbeing tracked by the Environmental ProtectionAgency, only NOx emissions have not decreasedsince the 1970s. NOx can have a powerful effecton the environment:l Aids formation of ground level ozonel Contributes to acid rain and respiratory

problemsl Reacts with other particles to form toxic

products, some of which might causebiological mutations

l Blocks transmission of light, reducing visibilityl Increases nitrogen loading in water, leading

to algae growth

Where Does UVM’s Electricity Come From?

Hydroelectric:Lewiston, NY; Messena, NY;Blemheim & Gilboa, NY; James Bay, Canada;Various locations in VT

Oil:Bellingham, MA; Burillville, RI; Burlington, VT

Coal:Brayton Point, MA

Natural Gas:Bellingham, MA; Burillville, RI

Wood:Burlington, VT

Methane:Burlington, VT

Nuclear:Waterford, CI; Vernon, VT; Seabrook, NH

Snapshot in 2000



Campus Resource Use

What are the main uses of energy?

The energy required for heating and electricity is aboutthe same at UVM: 45% and 42% respectively.

To compare the amount of energy used for space heating,electricity, and transportation, we converted the amount of energyused in 2000 into a common unit (terajoules). This calculationincludes the energy that was used during the creation andtransportation of electricity, heating fuels, gasoline and diesel.

The result was surprising. Electricity, which costs about $5 millionper year, uses slightly less energy than heating fuels (natural gasand oil), which cost $3 million per year.

Transportation (commuting and the university fleet) uses a muchsmaller share of energy at the university’s urban campus than for therest of Vermont. Our data show that commuting by faculty, staff,and students uses 12% of UVM’s total energy, while the university fleetof buses and service vehicles uses 1%.

What are the main uses of electricity?

Laboratories use one-third of campus electricity whileoccupying one-sixth of floor space.

Residence halls use one-sixth of electricity while occupyingone-third of floor space.

When campus and Burlington stakeholders identified energy use as akey concern, many felt that encouraging efficiency by students in theresidence halls would yield the greatest benefits. The data indicate thisis not true.

In addition to using energy-intensive equipment, laboratories require airconditioning to control experiments and more fresh air to keep indoor airquality safe. Laboratory buildings use about twice the electricity of theaverage campus building, and four times the electricity use of residence halls.

This information raises further questions: How much heating fuel dothe laboratory buildings use? How much of electricity use is for equipment,versus lighting, air conditioning and ventilation? How much can becontrolled by improved management and energy-saving technology?

Rest of campus: 53%


Lab buildings: 33% �Total = 52 million kilowatt-hours in 2000

Total = 1,137 terajoules in 2000�

Fleet:1%

Heating: 45%

Electricity: 42%

Commuting: 12%


Trends

Total energy use increased 6%

Between 1990 and 2000 UVM’s total use of energy for heating,electricity, and transportation rose 6%. Electricity accounted for thebulk of the increase; without improved efficiency the increasewould have been much higher.

Heating fuel use remained about the same, as efficiency effortsoffset a 5% increase in building space. Heating energy per squarefoot dropped 4%.

Electricity use increased 23%. The 1990s were marked byincreased demand for energy for laboratory space, computers, airconditioning, and other equipment. At the same time, energyefficiency efforts by the Physical Plant Department reducedelectricity use through the 1990s, chiefly by using more efficientlighting, cooling systems, and motors. In 1998, however, electricityuse increased, largely because renovations and new constructionincluded installing air conditioning. The result was an 11% increasein electricity use per square foot. Peak electricity use now occursin the summer at UVM, as it does regionally.

Energy use for transportation increased an estimated 13%between 1990 and 2000. These data need to be refined.

Fossil fuels accounted for 68% of total energy use in 2000.UVM relies on fossil fuels for heating (natural gas and fuel oil) andtransportation (gasoline and diesel). Nuclear energy accounted for 20%.

Electricity sources include more renewables than in 1990. In 2000,electricity came from the following sources.

l Nuclear power (48%)l Renewables – small-scale hydroelectric, wood, wind and landfill

methane (20%)l Natural gas (11%)l Hydroelectric dams (10%)l Fuel oil (9%)l Coal and methane (1% each)

(Large-scale hydroelectric energy is not considered renewable becauseof long-term impacts on local ecosystems.)

The Burlington Electric Department plans to reduce purchases ofelectricity from nuclear energy to 20% by the year 2007, while increasingrenewables to 40%.

Energy sources: 8% renewable in 2000

Fossil fuels: 68%

Nuclear: 20%

Hydroelectric: 4%

Renewable:8%

Energy Sources for Heating, Electricity andTransportation in 2000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 20000

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tera

joul

es

Heating

Electricity

Transportation

Energy Use 1990-2000 for Heating, Electricityand Transportation


Trends

The campus emitted an average of 65,500 metric tons ofgreenhouse gases (measured in carbon dioxide equivalents) eachyear since 1990, primarily from heating, electricity and transportation.UVM’s emissions increased 2% between 1990 and 2000. In contrast,Burlington’s emissions rose 23% between 1990 and 1997.

Heating fuel represents 60% of UVM’s carbon dioxide load.In 2000, UVM’s carbon emissions came from heating fuels (60%);transportation (20%); electricity (18%); and solid waste disposal,agriculture, and refrigerants (2%).

Cleaner electricity has offset increased electricity use. Electricity-related emissions increased 8%, while electricity use increased 23%.Heating emissions fluctuated, with 1990 levels the same as 2000.Transportation (commuting and university fleet) emissions increasedan estimated 13%.

Meeting the city of Burlington’s goal of 10% below 1997 levelswould mean an annual reduction of 6,600 tons for the university.Reducing emissions from heating offers the best opportunity to meetthis challenge (see page 15).

Carbon dioxide emissions increased 2%

Pollution levels depend on fuel type. Heating fuel use hasremained about the same since 1990. Air pollution from heatingincreased during years when natural gas was in high demand andthe central heating plant switched to fuel oil (“number six” oil)for parts of the winter. This is the main reason for increasedpollution in 1994 and 1996.

NOx is the major pollutant. The State of Vermont regulates airpollutants from burning natural gas and fuel oil. At UVM these areestimated to be as follows in 2000:

28 tons of NOx (nitrogen oxides)18 tons of CO (carbon monoxide)12 tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide)3 tons of total PM (particulates)

One way to reduce UVM’s peak NOx and SO2 emissions wouldbe to use only natural gas; this would increase costs significantly.

Data about regulated air pollutants were readily available onlyfor heating fuels. Future research could calculate regulated airpollutants from electricity and transportation.

Air pollution from heating fluctuated

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 20000

5

10

15

20

25

30

Tons

NOx

35

40

CO

SO2

TotalPM

Air Pollution Emissions from Heating

1990 20000

10

20

35

40

50

60

Tons

of C

O2

(thou

sand

s)

70

64.5 65.8

58.1

2010 Target: 10%Emissions Reduction

UVM Greenhouse Gas Inventory



Energy Use

1990 Trustees established an energy policy andcreated a $125,000 revolving loan fund forenergy efficiency projects; hired energymanager

1992 Trustees established a $1 million bond forenergy efficiency projects; additional bondswere issued for $500,000 each in 1995 and1998, and $1.5 million in 2002

2000 UVM installed a 5-kilowatt solar array on thecentral heating plant in collaboration withthe Burlington Electric Department and theU.S. Department of Energy

2001 VSTEP (student group) and PhysicalPlant Department performed a lightingupgrade in the Living and Learningresidence halls

2001 Trustees resolved to continue dialogue aboutthe proposed community energy project withthe McNeil Generating Station in Burlington

Air Pollution

1990 Physical Plant Department began purchasinglow sulfur (1%) fuel oil for the heating plantfor four boilers; 0.5% sulfur in fifth boiler in2000

1998 UVM joined EPA Climate Wise program totrack carbon emissions

2001 UVM joined the Alliance for Climate Actionin Burlington

2001 Transportation and Parking Departmenttested one biodiesel bus; biodiesel bus useexpanded to all buses in 2002

2002 UVM and the City of Burlington received $2.1million grant to build the region’s first fast-fillstation for compressed natural gas (CNG), andfor UVM to purchase five CNG buses

Energy efficiency partnership saved $1.6 million in 2002Energy efficiency measures in the 1990s by the Physical Plant Department, working

closely with the Burlington Electric Department (BED), resulted in avoided electricity useof 16,000,000 kilowatt-hours ($1.6 million) in 2002. More efficient lighting systems,motors for fans and pumps, equipment, and windows reduced carbon dioxide emissionsby an estimated 6,700 tons per year, the equivalent of taking 15,000 cars off the road,according to BED. Efficiency efforts also reduced sulfur dioxide by 36 tons per year, andnitrogen oxides by 12 tons.

Rubenstein Lab designed for low energy useBecause research laboratories need six to twelve air changes per hour to maintain

good air quality, they use a great deal of energy.UVM’s lakeside research facility, theRubenstein Ecosystem Science Laboratory, incorporates energy-efficient features thatsaved an estimated $37,000 in the first year and $575,000 over 20 years. Savings comefrom controlled ventilation and energy recovery ($494,000); reduction of infiltration($47,000); and improved outside walls ($33,000). The laboratory’s research focuses onlake water quality, and includes testing of storm water from the campus.

Solar project demonstrates power of renewablesDemonstration solar photovoltaic panels installed on the roof of UVM’s central

heating plant in May 2000 contribute about 5,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity to campus,more than enough to power an average Vermont home. Engineering student Nik Ponzio‘01 created a website at www.uvm.edu/~solar showing real-time and historical dataabout electricity generation from the panels. Students of solar energy in Vermont andworldwide can use the website to learn about photovoltaic technology.

Biodiesel buses use recycled, renewable fuelAfter Environmental Studies senior Joshua Cabell ‘01 proposed testing biodiesel in

UVM buses, a year-long experiment began. One bus used “B20,” a mix of 80% diesel and20% biodiesel, made from recycled vegetable oil from local restaurants. In fall of 2002 allbuses were converted to B20. The project has been popular with students and hasspurred interest in alternate fuel vehicles. The next step is to use cleaner-burning naturalgas in the buses.

Students active in energy issues, green designThe Consortium for Ecological Living (CEL), a student group formed in 1998, has

been a vocal advocate for “green building” in construction projects at UVM. CEL and theVermont Student Environmental Program (VSTEP), another student group, have workedwith Physical Plant to upgrade lighting in residence halls. Jake Grace, EnvironmentalStudies ‘02, investigated energy use in residence halls and recommended leasing studentsenergy efficient refrigerators.


Next StepsCommunity Comments

Many campus and Burlington stakeholders expressed concern and suggestedsolutions about energy issues, including transportation (see page 9). Research findingsabout increases in electricity use were disappointing to many, especially given theaggressive efforts to conserve.

Global warming and co-generationAt every meeting we held, people noted that Burlington has pledged to reduce its

greenhouse gas emissions by 10%, and recommended that UVM do the same.The Burlington Electric Department (BED) proposed a community co-generation

project known as the Burlington Community Energy System, that is estimated to reducecarbon dioxide emissions by about 30,000 tons, or 40% of UVM’s total. The projectwould require a $9 million pipeline to bring heat (as steam and hot water) from thewoodchip-burning electric generating station 1.5 miles from campus. An EnvironmentalStudies thesis by Laura Pagliarulo ‘02, and a graduate Business Administration study byLoren Doe, ‘99 explore this topic in detail.

In 2001 the Board of Trustees passed a resolution supporting the communityenergy system and authorized the UVM administration to work with the BED inapplying for federal funding. The goals are for the university to participate as acustomer of the system without being required to incur capital or other costs, andfor the system to offer competitive rates, favorable environmental impacts, and reliableservice. Many commenters on this report card expressed support for this project.

Long-term energy planningSeveral campus stakeholders pointed to the need for long-term energy planning,

beyond the present five-year payback horizon. Participation in the community energysystem, continued energy efficiency programs, and smaller combined heat and powersystems all will require longer term planning, especially in building construction andthe development of integrated heating and cooling systems. Physical Plant and otherkey staff on campus agree that a 10-20 year energy plan codified in the Campus MasterPlan could help reduce costs and improve reliability of the UVM heating, cooling, andelectrical system. Long-term planning horizons also make it easier to justify andaccount for investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Alternate fuel vehiclesCampus and Burlington stakeholders expressed great interest in using alternate fuel

vehicles for UVM’s buses as a way to bring energy issues to the attention of thousandsof students and visitors, and to improve air quality in the immediate vicinity of the busroute. They agreed that an appropriate long-term goal is to have a larger fleet of low-to zero-emissions buses running more frequently on and off campus (see also page 9).

Energy use is an integral part of daily life at UVM,yet much is beyond the control of the individual. In theenergy arena, the onus is on the university administra-tion to do the difficult but necessary work of reducingtotal energy use through an aggressive energy policy.

Commit to long-term energy planning

l Incorporate a long-term energy plan into theCampus Master Plan, addressing both energy usesand energy sources.

l Create a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.l Continue to restrict where and how air.

conditioning is used, and increase use of ceilingfans and natural ventilation for cooling.

l Continue to explore co-generation opportunities,including the Burlington community energysystem.

Encourage conservation efforts

l Continue to fund the Physical Plant Department’senergy efficiency program; extend allowablepayback time for investments.

l Reduce commuting miles through carpooling andpublic transportation.

l Find ways to reduce electricity use in laboratorieswhile still maintaining constant temperature andhigh air quality.

Future research ideas:

l Report on costs of community and campusco-generation options.

l Examine options to reduce peak electricitydemand and resulting additional charges.

l Analyze and quantify energy use for airconditioning; research alternate cooling systems.

l Explore demonstration projects in renewableenergy.

SolidandHazardousWaste

aste produced during thecourse of daily life at UVMgoes to many places to be

recycled, buried or incinerated. In 2002solid waste was sent to a landfill inCoventry, one of only two available inVermont. Hazardous and radioactivewaste traveled hundreds of miles fordisposal.

In addition to wasting naturalresources, disposal of solid and hazard-ous waste can create many environ-mental impacts. Modern landfills andincinerators are designed to minimizethese impacts but they still persist:

l Ground and surface waterpollution

l Explosion hazards frommethane build-up, greenhousegas emissions

l Impacts on natural areasl Noise, dust, blowing litterl Air pollution from incineration

and transportation of wastel Disproportionate impacts on

poor communitiesCreating less waste and recycling

are the best ways to reduce theseenvironmental impacts.

Where Does UVM’s Waste Go?

and COMPUTERS –

Buried

Recycled

Incinerated

W


Campus Resource Use

Where is trash generated on campus?

Residence halls generate half of landfilled waste

Residence halls, which occupy about one-third of the floorspace on campus, create a disproportionate amount of waste.This can be partly explained by the amount of time studentsspend on campus. It also indicates that the residence halls area logical place to reduce waste.

What does UVM recycle?

Paper= 44% of recyclables

Paper (newspaper, white and colored office paper, magazines)comprises the largest portion of recycled waste. Cardboard boxesand food and beverage containers, both forms of packaging, togethercomprise 30%. Although recycling helps reduce environmentalimpacts, reducing the amount of paper and packaging that needsto be recycled is far preferable.

Where does hazardous waste come from?

Laboratory buildings generate half thehazardous waste

Hazardous waste comes from:

Laboratories using chemicals for teaching and research,and art studios.

Operations and maintenance of campus buildings and vehicles,including waste oil, solvents, paints, and rust inhibitors.

Construction debris from campus infrastructure projects,especially lead paint and asbestos-contaminated materials.

Total = 1,627 tons in 2001

Total = 723 tons(31% of all waste generated)

Total = 40 tons (average 1996-2000)


Rest of campus: 35%

Laboratory buildings: 15%


Compost: 8%

Wood: 6% Other: 3%

Paper: 44%

Cardboard: 17%

Containers: 13%

Scrap metal: 9%

Construction: 26% Laboratories: 46%

Operations: 28%

Trends

Trash increased 20% since 1996;Recycled waste decreased 24%.

Trash is increasing at UVM and county-wide. Of allthe indicators in this report card, the increase in trash is thesteepest trend in a negative direction: 20% increase in five years.This is even greater than the 17% increase county-wide. Trashvolume also rose across the nation.

Recycling is down since 1996. Recycling began in the early1990s at UVM and successfully reduced UVM’s waste by at least30% in the late 1990s. Yet for unexplained reasons, the amountrecycled decreased 24% from 1996 to 2001. The percent of totaltrash recycled dropped from 43% in 1996 to 31% in 2001. Alsoalarming, UVM’s recycling rate decreased even as county ratesincreased.

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Trash

Recycled

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

UVM Recycled and Landfilled Solid Waste

Students expect recycling.85% say recycling is convenient at UVM.

Recycling is important to students. In a December 2000Environmental Council survey of a random sample of students, 85%of respondents described campus-wide recycling as an importantactivity – more important than energy conservation, pesticidereduction, and buying recycled paper.

Recycling is convenient for students. Of those surveyed,72% said UVM was doing a good job of recycling, and 85% said theyfound it convenient to recycle on campus. UVM’s waste reductionefforts received lower marks.

Students in the residence halls could recycle more. In 2001,Environmental Studies students and the UVM Recycling Office sortedthrough samples of trash from residence halls. They found that 25% ofthe trash (by weight) was paper and containers that could have beenrecycled.

Educational efforts should next focus on students in the residencehalls, since half of the trash comes from the residential side of campus.Staff and faculty can lead by example, reinforcing UVM’s culture ofenvironmental responsibility.

Important for highereducation

UVM showscommitment

Convenient forstudents at UVM

0 20 40 60 80 100Percentage of students agreeing

Waste reduction

Recycling

Student Perceptions about Recycling & Waste Reduction


Ton

s

Trends

Hazardous waste fluctuated 1995-2000

Construction drives fluctuation. The amount of hazardouswaste from UVM fluctuated widely during the last half of thedecade, primarily as a result of construction and renovation projects.These projects involved the removal of lead paint debris, asbestos-laden materials, and soil contaminated by underground storagetanks. Removal of excess chemicals during laboratory renovationsalso contributed to spikes in the amount of hazardous waste dis-posed. These factors confuse the historical trends associated withUVM hazardous waste. The data shown here are primarily useful forlong-term analysis of the success of these clean-up efforts.

UVM’s new management plan will measure progress.UVM is required by government regulation to reduce the amountof hazardous waste it generates. Laboratory waste is the leadingsource of these wastes. As part of its pollution prevention program,UVM is participating in a four-year pilot project with the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency to test use of an EnvironmentalManagement Plan. The goal is to measurably improve workerawareness of hazardous waste and reduce the amount of chemicalwaste generated in laboratories.

The 1980 waste increase followed an institutionalpolicy change. In 1980, UVM banned the disposal of low-levelwaste down its drains, even though such disposal was legal.The result was a rapid increase in the amount of radioactivewaste collected. At the same time, disposal sites became scarce.This combination of factors prompted a re-evaluation of researchmethods.

Rapidly rising costs drove change. From 1990 to 2000,radioactive waste generated by UVM’s medical, biomedical,biological, and animal science laboratories decreased 81%.Though research projects increased steadily, waste was held undercontrol, in part because of the increasing cost and stricter regulationsassociated with radioactive waste disposal.

Changes in research techniques meant using fewerradioactive materials. Researchers also switched to shorter-lived radioactive materials and became better educated aboutdisposal methods. Careful handling and separation of waste by theRadiation Safety Office further reduced volume and disposal costs.

Radioactive waste decreased 81% 1990-2000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

01995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Poun

d p

er y

ear

TOTAL

Hazardous Waste Disposed 1995-2000

1400

1200

100

800

600

400

200

0

Cub

ic f

eet

colle

cted

1970 1980 1990 2000

Radioactive Waste Disposed 1968-2000



Solid waste

1987 Vermont Student Environmental Program(VSTEP) established, indicating strongstudent interest in recycling

1990 Recycling coordinator hired, campus-widerecycling began for newspaper, bottles, cans,plastic jugs

1990s Surplus property, food composting, andspecial materials programs began

1993-4 Waste paper used for animal bedding at theUVM farm on a trial basis

1997 End-of-year student Move-out programinitiated by students, implemented byPhysical Plant

1998 Environmentally Smart Office workshoppresented to staff to help reduce office wasteand conserve resources

1999 Office supplies reuse program started

Hazardous and radioactive waste

1980 Low-level radioactive materials prohibited byUVM to be put down drains, though legal todo so

1994 Non-regulated hazardous materials collectedfor recycling, safe disposal (fluorescent bulbs,batteries)

1996 ChemSource program established for centralpurchasing of laboratory chemicals

1998 Mercury thermometer exchange collectedmore than 1500 mercury thermometers

1999 Environmental management plan forhazardous laboratory waste created as part ofProject XL, an EPA pilot project for four years

2000 Physical Plant began computer recycling

Move-out: five tons collectedEvery year at the end of spring semester 3,500 students move out of UVM

residence halls and another 2,500 leave downtown apartments, disposing of literallytons of waste materials. UVM Physical Plant works with local charities to collect usablefurniture, clothes and food, and to encourage students to recycle and dispose ofremaining trash responsibly. In May 2000 about five tons of useful items were collectedthrough the campus Move-out program.

Increasing use of recycled paperPaper comprises the largest component of UVM’s waste. To help close the

recycling loop and reduce environmental impacts, UVM adopted a paper purchasingpolicy in 1998. According to research by Environmental Studies student Megan Hunt‘01, promotional efforts by the Purchasing and Physical Plant departments havebrought 30% recycled paper to most campus copiers, with a growing number ofdepartments using 100% post-consumer recycled, chlorine-free paper. UVM’s custodialpaper products (restroom tissues and towels) meet or exceed federal standards forrecycled content. UVM Dining Services uses unbleached, recycled content napkins inthe dining halls.

Students promote recyclingThe UVM student group VSTEP (Vermont Student Environmental Program) was

instrumental in starting recycling at UVM and continues to support educationalprograms about recycling. In 2002 VSTEP helped the Recycling Office launch a pilotfood composting program in the residence halls and tested a program to certify UVMoffices as environmentally “smart.”

Mercury risk reducedNationally, broken thermometers are responsible for the release of tons of mercury

into the general environment every year. Mercury pollution is responsible for advisoriesagainst eating fish from Lake Champlain and other U.S. rivers and lakes. At UVM,hazardous waste staff at the Environmental Safety Facility (ESF) were cleaning upmercury spills from broken thermometers once per week in the mid 1990s.

In 1997, as part of a pollution prevention program, the ESF worked with the 500campus laboratories to swap 1,700 mercury-containing thermometers for non-toxicalternatives. The swap reduced potential health risks to laboratory personnel frombroken thermometers and reduced costs: the onetime investment of $17,600 for the18-month program reduced mercury cleanup costs by $8,700 per year since then. Theprogram paid for itself in two years and received a Governor’s Pollution PreventionAward in 2000.


Next Steps

Help students in residence halls torecycle and reduce waste.Cooperative efforts are needed next to:l Help students in residence halls to recycle and

reduce waste, perhaps using incentives. Preliminarydata suggest that if students living on campusrecycled all their paper and containers, total campustrash could be reduced by 10%.

l Reinforce a recycling-oriented culture: A new roundof campus-wide education about recycling andbuying recycled paper products would reinforcegood behaviors.

l Continue to develop the Move-out program. Thisprogram raises awareness, contributes to charities,and reduces waste.

Continue strong hazardous andradioactive waste management programs.l Support the environmental management plan

(EMP). Because laboratory staff and experimentschange frequently, proper management practicesneed constant reinforcement and reinvention, asdescribed in the university’s EMP. This effortwarrants continued support.

l Focus on training. The university made a strongcommitment to training to ensure safe disposal ofhazardous waste.

l Share waste reduction successes. Researchers canlook for ways to reduce specific kinds of hazardousand radioactive waste and share successes withcolleagues. This can be done both within UVM andwith other schools.

Future research ideas:l Determine the percentage of the recyclable waste that

actually gets recycled.l Determine the composition of waste from residential,

laboratory, and classroom buildings.l Track the amount of biohazardous waste for future

UVM report cards.

Community Comments

Discussions about UVM’s performance in managing solid and hazardous wastecentered on the following themes.

Trash increase is puzzlingOf all the trends in this report, the increase in trash caused the greatest concern

among campus and Burlington community stakeholders. Speculations about causes forthe increase included the influence of national trends of increased trash generation anddecreased recycling, more stringent quality control, an increase in packaging materials,and a booming economy.

On-campus students need incentivesRecycling is commonly perceived as a basic practice of an “environmental literate”

citizen, and should therefore continue to be strongly emphasized. Students on campussuggested offering the residence halls incentives for reducing their trash and increasingtheir recycling. A more detailed look at the available data, as well as more precisemethods of estimating the amount of waste generated from each building, couldprovide the basis for a focused educational program.

Reducing off-campus trashBurlington stakeholders expressed concern about trash generated by off-campus

students when they move out of their apartments in May, sometimes leaving behindunsightly piles of trash and furniture. Representatives of the city and the university haveworked together to manage this problem, with some success. The challenge is toeducate students and engage the cooperation of the apartment owners on whoseproperty the trash is left.

Dining hall “foam” concerns activistsFor many years, students continue to express concern about the use of Styrofoam,

or “foam,” in the Billings dining hall. Because there is no room for dishwashing facilitiesin this historic building, it serves primarily as a “take-out” food service. An experimentwith foam recycling in the late 1990s did not work well. To minimize the use of foam,discounts are given to students who bring reusable cups.

No hazardous chemicals down drains?Several community members asked whether radioactive and hazardous wastes are

poured down drains. Environmental Safety staff report that the university has policyagainst such use of the drains. In addition, testing of wastewater from the appropriatebuildings has generally not found detectable amounts of chemical contamination in thepast. Dilution with the buildings’ regular sewage makes such testing problematic. Safetystaff focus on training laboratory personnel to manage this potential risk to waterquality.


Trends

Environmentalmajors at UVM

College of Agricultureand Life Sciences

Biological ScienceBotanyEnvironmental SciencesEnvironmental Studies*International DevelopmentPlant & Soil ScienceUrban Forestry

College of Arts andSciences

BiologyBiologyBotanyEnvironmental SciencesEnvironmental StudiesGeologyGeography**Zoology

College of Engineeringand Mathematics

Environmental Engineering **

School of NaturalResources

Environmental SciencesEnvironmental StudiesForestryNatural ResourcesRecreation ManagementWildlife & Fisheries Biology

* Interdisciplinary program inCALS, CAS, SNR, CESS** Not included in chart to leftdue to data limitations

Environmentally Related Graduates (B.A., B.S.)

Total environmental graduates up 60%1989-2001

College of Arts & Sciences

School ofNatural

Resources

College ofAgriculture

Environmental Studies& Science*

0 20 40 60 80 100

1997-2001

1989-1993

120

Average Graduates per Four-year Period

*Cross-college majors shown separately here; these are also included in CAS, CALS, and SNR figures

AcademicsandCulture

Graduates from environmentally related majors increasedrapidly from an average of 177 per year during 1989-1993 to 282 atthe end of the decade, according to a 2002 study by Public Adminis-tration student Margaret Modley ‘02.l Arts & Sciences environmental graduates increased 73% with a

new Environmental Sciences major and increased enrollment inEnvironmental Studies.

l Natural Resources graduates increased 44% and comprisedone-third of all environmentally related majors.

l Agriculture & Life Sciences environmental graduates increased66%, with the largest increase in Environmental Studies.

l Cross-college graduates increased 172%. Graduates of Environ-mental Studies more than doubled in the decade, and newEnvironmental Sciences majors were created in all threeacademic units in the late 1990s.

A better measure of environmentally related academicprograms would include students in Environmental Engineeringand graduate students in environmental fields.

T he challenge ofcreating anenvironmentally

sustainable future demands thatstudents today develop scientificexpertise, social understanding, ethicalconcern, and an appetite for problem-solving. Institutions of higher educationcan lead the way both by offeringeducation and research in relevantareas of expertise and by exposingstudents to a campus culture ofenvironmental responsibility.

UVM’s successes to date inreducing environmental impactsreflect the efforts of a wide variety ofpeople. Many of the “best practices”described in this report involvecollaborative efforts among concernedfaculty, staff, and students who decidedto act. An institution’s commitment toenvironmental sustainability is builton such a culture of innovation,environmental responsibility, andcollaboration.

This section briefly examines theculture at UVM and the growth ofenvironmentally related academicprograms in the 1990s, as they areimportant factors affecting theenvironmental footprint of the campus.



Trends

Students expect a “green” UVM

Best Practices & Next Steps

Campus as learning laboratoryThe main campus and nearby natural areas owned by UVM serve as important

facilities for instruction and scientific study, bringing faculty and student attention toUVM land use. Recent projects by faculty and students include:

l Undergraduate research, internships, and class projects addressing biodiesel inbuses, energy efficiency, paper purchasing, and pesticide use

l A contructed wetland at the UVM farm (Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering)l Gardens for vines and annuals (Plant & Soil Science)l Test plots for restoring compacted soil (Geology)l Testing of ground, surface, and storm water (Geology, Plant & Soil Science,

Environmental Science, School of Natural Resources)

Student group initiativesBetween 1990 and 2000 students launched a number of environmental initiatives:

l Vermont Student Environmental Program (VSTEP) helped propel an aggressiverecycling program in the early 1990s, and has since supportedrecycling, energy conservation, and environmental education projects incollaboration with the Physical Plant Department and the Environmental Council.

l Consortium for Ecological Living (CEL), established in 1998, has brought a steadystream of speakers on ecological design, climate change, and campus greening.

l Earth Day celebrations have brought together diverse student environmentalgroups, raising awareness of environmental issues and showcasing positivealternatives.

Next steps:l Further define UVM’s strategic goals for emphasizing environment as a

key academic theme through academic master planning.

l Publicize UVM’s greening efforts to students. Brochures, signs,interpretive displays, news releases communicate UVM’saccomplishments and encourage a culture of environmental awareness.

l Develop a greening plan for the renovation of the residence halls.Students can most easily learn how to be responsible environmentalcitizens if it is convenient and supported where they live.

l Provide incentive grants for greening UVM curricula to develop newcourses or restructure existing courses to include an environmentalperspective.

0 20 40 60 80

Campus-wide recycling

Energy efficient practices

Buying recycled paper

Minimizing pesticide useon compus

Promoting environmentally-orientedstudent groups

Using low-impact energy sources

Offering vegetarian foods

Reducing the need for carsaround campus

CommitmentImportance

Percent

Student Perceptions of Importance vs. UVMCommitment to Greening Practices

Students think “greening” is important and UVMgenerally shows commitment to an environmentallyresponsible campus. In an Environmental Council survey in2000, randomly selected UVM students were first asked aboutthe importance of different campus greening issues in highereducation, and later asked how committed UVM was to thesesame issues. Generally respondents gave UVM good marks formaking recycling convenient, promoting environmental studentgroups, and reducing the need for cars. However, they feltUVM fell short in practicing energy efficiency, using low-impact energy sources, buying recycled paper, and minimizingpesticide use.

Many UVM students are uninformed about theextent of UVM’s greening practices such as energyconservation, using low-impact energy sources, and pesticideminimization. This report’s findings indicate that these lowratings are undeserved (see pages 8 and 14).


T

Recommendations forGreening UVM

he findings in this report card track the many ways that daily life atUVM affects the local, regional, and global environment. Based onthe available data and on observations from campus and Burlington

stakeholders, we identified some next steps that could be taken to reduceenvironmental impacts at the end of each section.

Who will take these next steps? The UVM administration established manyenvironmentally related policies and programs during the 1990s. Professionalstaff began the complex task of creating systems that make it easy for thecampus community to be “green.” But individuals also make decisions on adaily basis that affect the institution’s environmental impacts, such as turning offlights, recycling, and driving less. As we found in this report, people in resi-dence halls and laboratories play different roles in the use of land, water,energy, and materials.

The data in this report led to the following recommendations about waysthat different groups of people at UVM can best direct their efforts to reduceenvironmental impacts.

Land and WaterAdministration:

l Build a “green” student residence halll Establish sustainable building design principles and construction

methods for use in all building construction projectsl Build a parking garage rather than creating new surface parkingl Continue to collaborate with regional efforts to improve

transportation, and facilitate more off-campus parking for faculty, staff

Faculty and staff:l Drive fewer milesl Take advantage of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles

Students:l Participate in planning for new residence halls, student apartmentsl Keep cars and foot traffic off green space

Energy and Air Pollution

Administration:l Develop a long-term energy plan that includes investigation into

the proposed community energy system; development of smallsystems that generate both heat and power;

and an environmentally responsible approach to the increased demandfor air conditioning

l Make energy conservation a top priority with new buildings

Laboratory faculty and staff:l Understand the ways energy is used in laboratory buildings and find

ways to reduce their energy use

Campus-wide:l Turn off computers and lights when not in use; buy Energy Star rated

productsl Pay attention to open windows that may be letting in hot or cold air

Solid and Hazardous Waste

Students:l Increase recycling participation and reduce solid waste generated in

residence halls

Faculty and staff:l Recycle to set an example for students; buy recycled copier paper;

copy on both sides; minimize paper use

Laboratory faculty and staff:l Continue to reduce use of hazardous and radioactive materialsl Train newcomers to follow proper environmental safety procedures

Campus-wide Action

Administration:l Formalize UVM’s environmental commitment by creating a

campus-wide environmental policy and planl Incorporate environmental indicators into the campus master planl Create a long-term plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

Faculty and staff:l Help make connections between academics and operations with class

projects, internships and service learning on campusl Reinforce UVM’s culture of waste reduction, recycling and energy

conservation by demonstrating environmentally responsible actions

Students:l Recycle, conserve energyl Report problems such as leaky faucets and overheated buildingsl Conduct research about campus operations for class projects,

internships

Many of the websites here include extensivelinks to relevant sites.

UVM

Administration

Campus Master Planhttp://www.uvm.edu/~plan

UVM Solar Panel Projecthttp://www.uvm.edu/~solar

Biodiesel Buseshttp://www.uvm.edu/~bdiesel

Physical Plant DepartmentEnergy Management & Recycling Officehttp://www.uvm.edu/~uvmppd

Environmental Safety Facilityhttp://esf.uvm.edu

Paper Purchasing Policyhttp://www.uvm.edu/~uvmppg/ppg/procure/paperpol.htm

Radiation Safety Office(802) 656-2570www.uvm.edu/~radsafe

UVM Natural Areashttp://www.uvm.edu/~envprog

Academics

College of Agriculture & Life Scienceshttp://www.uvm.edu/~cals/

Environmental Programhttp://www.uvm.edu/~envprog

Environmental Sciences Programhttp://www.uvm.edu/~cals/envsci/

Civil and Environmental Engineeringhttp://www.emba.uvm.edu/cee/

Department of Geologyhttp://geology.uvm.edu/

School of Natural Resourceshttp://snr.uvm.edu/

Web Resources Penn State Green Destiny Councilhttp://www.bio.psu.edu/greendestiny/publications.shtml

Tufts Climate Initiativehttp://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/TCIMenu.html

UB Green at SUNY Buffalohttp://wings.buffalo.edu/services/recycling/

University of Florida’s Sustainability Task Forcehttp://www.admin.ufl.edu/committees/sustain/

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillhttp://sustainability.unc.edu

l This report and additionallinks are on-line atwww.uvm.edu/environment

Vermont10% Challengewww.10percentchallenge.org

Burlington Climate Action Planhttp://www.burlingtonelectric.com/SpecialTopics/climate.htm

Burlington Eco Info Projecthttp://www.burlingtonecoinfo.net

Burlington Legacy Projecthttp://www.cedo.ci.burlington.vt.us/

Campus Area Transportation Management Associationhttp://www.uvm.edu/~catma

Chittenden Solid Waste Districthttp://www.cswd.net/

Intervale Compost Programhttp://www.intervale.org/compost.html

Vermont Environmental Assistance Divisionhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ead/eadhome/default.htm

Vermont Clean State Councilhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/csc/homepage.htm

Higher EducationNational Wildlife Federation Campus Ecology Programhttp://www.nwf.org/campusecology/index.cfm

Sustainable Development on Campus,International Institute for Sustainable Developmenthttp://iisd1.iisd.ca/educate/

University Leaders for a Sustainable Futurewww.ulsf.org/

Brown is Greenhttp://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/big/

Middlebury College Environmental Councilhttp://community.middlebury.edu/~enviroc/

New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainabilityhttp://www.njheps.org/

Oberlin Lewis Center for Environmental Studieshttp://www.oberlin.edu/envs/ajlc/

Pennsylvania Consortium For InterdisciplinaryEnvironmental Policyhttp://www.paconsortium.state.pa.us/

Printed on Mohawk Reincarnation Text andCover, 50% post-consumer recycled content,chlorine-free bleaching process

Tracking UVM is the second ina series of three reports aboutUVM’s environmental impacts:

Greening UVMCampus Environmental Report, 1998

Tracking UVMEnvironmental Report Card, 2002

Cooling UVMGreenhouse Gas Inventory, 2002

UVM Environmental Council284 East AvenueBurlington, VT 05405(802) [email protected]://www.uvm.edu/environment

An EnvironmentalReport Card

for theUniversity of Vermont

for the years 1990-2000

UVMTracking

tracking uvm

Documents

project partnersthis

project coordination

tracking uvm

recommendationsfor uvm

gioia thompsonresearch

ralph stuart wasmuch

east state streetmontpelier

linda howard